Vote Yes on SF Proposition C

There are 11 city propositions on the San Francisco ballot this election, including a few very contentious ones, such as Proposition F, the new set of Airbnb restrictions, and Proposition I, freezing development in the Mission for 18 months to draft a new neighborhood plan. There is an important affordable housing bond (Proposition A) and a great-looking development that will test the “no wall on the waterfront” ethos (Proposition D). So this timely essay is about an obscure public disclosure measure, Proposition C.

Proposition C is a measure that seeks to regulate “expenditure lobbyists” in the same way “contact lobbyists” are already regulated. What the measure defines as contact lobbyists is what we think of as lobbyists, basically people who directly contact city officials on behalf of an employer or paying client. Expenditure lobbying is defined as someone who spends money to “solicit, request, or urge other persons to communicate” with city officials, “in order to influence local legislative or administrative action.” If a person or a group spends more than $2,500 a month on this kind of lobbying, they have to register with city as a lobbyist and file a monthly report detailing what legislation/action they sought to influence, the amount they’ve spent lobbying, and any information on campaign contributions of $100 or more that they have made or were made at their behest.

More transparency on who exactly is spending money to influence city government sounds great. But some good government nonprofit groups oppose Proposition C. Why? Because nonprofits that spend $2,500 month or more to urge others to contact city officials in order to influence a city decision will have to disclose that spending. And nonprofits don’t want to be called lobbyists.

I went to the ballot discussion hosted by SPUR several weeks ago to hear their reasoning behind their voter guide recommendations. I think SPUR is a great organization (I’m a member) and their careful analysis of the measures was very helpful. SPUR, along with several other non-profits, are a No on C. They have legitimate concerns regarding the extra burden the reporting requirement will add; non-profits will now have to track and record their advocacy spending (though it seems that this is data that a group that can afford $2,500 a month or more in such spending might already be recording). They are concerned about the cost of the registration fee ($500), but I don’t think nonprofits will actually have to pay it. Finally, they are concerned that good nonprofits that do good work are basically getting caught up in a measure that was meant to shine light on “astro-turf” groups. Groups that are basically set up as shell nonprofits with names like “Coalition for an Affordable City,” which sounds a lot better than “Coca-Cola against the Soda Tax.”

I think this is short-sighted. SPUR and other non-profits oppose this proposition mainly because they fear the chilling effect of having to disclose advocacy spending under the label “expenditure lobbying.” Basically, nobody likes lobbyists, so please don’t call us that! I suppose they fear that grassroots organizing to influence city policy will become unpopular if it is categorized as lobbying. But if what you are lobbying . . . uh, advocating, for is better government that works better for its citizens, you should not be ashamed. Good government non-profits should not be afraid to say, yes we spend money educating people on, and advocating for, certain issues, because these issues are important to us, and here is why. More to the point, the principal that we have a right to know who is spending money to influence our government, whether for good or for ill, (and that can be very subjective), should trump that theoretical “chilling effect.”

And frankly, the legislation is not as draconian as it is made out to be. Only money spent towards encouraging people to contact their city officials regarding legislation or city policies counts toward the $2,500 threshold, and there are several exemptions, such as money spent by a nonprofit to communicate with its members, that don’t count towards that threshold. As the proposition authors note, several cities (Sacramento, LA, San Diego) and the State of California already have similar legislation in place.

Not all nonprofits oppose this measure; the Sierra Club endorses Prop C. And both the Chronicle and the Examiner support Prop C, and those papers are on opposite sides of many of the other measures. The bottom line is that public disclosure of the private money that is used to influence city policy is an important transparency measure, and the more transparency in the way government works the better, especially in San Francisco. The impression that secretive money is influencing government depresses civic engagement. And seeing as only about a third of the city will actually vote in this election already, more engaged would be better. Vote Yes on C, please!